REPLY Getting a Good Problem Statement (SD6536)

[SDMAIL Bill Braun]

Posted by  Bill Braun <bbraun at hlthsys.com>

Jean-Jaque Lauble poses some follow-up questions.

> Sounds good too. But is group modelling enough to avoid the risk of
> loosing the support of people who control the resources or fail to be
> implemented?


Good point; I think group modeling is necessary and may not be sufficient. 
There is much good literature on securing champions and sponsors for 
projects, so I will not expand on that here.

> It seems to me that the brilliant solutions failed because the conditions
> exposed in the first paragraph were not met.
> Was it the case?

Yes, I failed to anticipate how "downstream" stakeholders would receive the 
proposed solutions in the absence of "upstream" engagement. This and your 
first point I think are deeply connected.

> <Finally, resist "how" questions. Such questions assume at
>
> I am not sure of having fully understood this.
> It should mean that generally people do not have the solution.

I am drawing a distinction between asking a question as though the answer is 
not known, and actually not having it. I opine that "how" questions are 
often a dodge for doing better/tougher thinking.

Simple example: How should we design our web site?

If the technical know-how is missing, finding the technical know-how is a 
good step. If that question takes the place of, "what questions are at the 
heart of designing a web site?" then the "how?" question defers deeper 
questions that if explored could lead to deeper insights. The "how?" question 
expresses the belief that "what works?" is the defining question and as such 
is a driving force in the identity of the manager. So, "get stuff done" wins 
out over, "who are our stakeholders, and what really matters to them?".

This is not an invitation to endlessly wander; I am mindful of moving forward. 
I cannot help but wonder, with all the effort that has gone into solutions, 
why in the the nearly 250 years since the beginning of the industrial revolution 
and the formation of the concept of "organization", we don't run our 
organization better than we do? Seems like enough time to get it right.

Jay asks why we cannot design organizations to fail at roughly the same 
rate as chemical plants? So, why can't we, with all the attention given to 
solutions? We've been collecting the answer to "how" for years and entire 
forests have died to put them into print. What would other questions, design 
to get at what really matters, reveal to us?

Thank you for the questions, Jean-Jaque.

Bill Braun
Posted by  Bill Braun <bbraun at hlthsys.com>
posting date  Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:43:48 -0400